OT: Conventional v alternative medicine

[Interdasting]

The fear of not being universally trusted or seen as the bulwark of knowledge is the same prospect that monarchs strove for when they wanted universal praise and issues followed.

Regardless of whatever personally held beliefs you may have, aggressively discrediting a service will not change the fact that this is based off of the patient's beliefs or decisions and has nothing whatsoever to do with the practices that you rail against.

The inconsistency of the procedures and outcomes are the causes of the "scientific community's" stance on alternative medicine (which is by the label itself biased, categorizing it as something that is not deemed what the "community" chooses to be correct).

In fact, what isn't "alternative" medicine is itself so broad that it cannot be ham-handedly painted with a broad brush, just as many would do the same to this (I would say) type of medicine.

 

[pharphis]

The fear of not being universally trusted or seen as the bulwark of knowledge is the same prospect that monarchs strove for when they wanted universal praise and issues followed.

Regardless of whatever personally held beliefs you may have, aggressively discrediting a service will not change the fact that this is based off of the patient's beliefs or decisions and has nothing whatsoever to do with the practices that you rail against.

The inconsistency of the procedures and outcomes are the causes of the "scientific community's" stance on alternative medicine (which is by the label itself biased, categorizing it as something that is not deemed what the "community" chooses to be correct).

In fact, what isn't "alternative" medicine is itself so broad that it cannot be ham-handedly painted with a broad brush, just as many would do the same to this (I would say) type of medicine.

Underlined: I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The patient's beliefs and the scope of practice for these alternative healthcare providers are closely connected. Public perception can be changed on these kinds of issues. I don't think that patients would be as easily misled or willing to pursue these kinds of treatments if they were better regulated or if the general public was better educated. I don't think it's as simple as you're suggesting it is and I'm sure there are multiple paths to forming a better public health and education.

I'm not sure that the label is biased. We're talking about expert consensus here (or lack thereof), not simply opinion that anyone can come to. This is like the analogy with the mechanic. The scientific community is the best source for truth and if certain topics fit in the category of alt med, pseudoscience or otherwise it is ofc provisional based on any future evidence (open-minded ). Some things, however, are so unlikely to be true (such as homeopathy, creationism, etc.) based on multiple fields of study suggesting otherwise (physics, chemistry, and biology for homeopathy) as well as clinical trials showing it is no better than placebo so these things can be considered as much of a fact as other things we know (like heliocentrism) are factual.

I agree that when making claims we have to be careful and broad terms can often be used to paint a broad brush when it isn't due. This is why I've tried to make some distinction between alt med practices with little, no, or contradictory evidence, since there are many many treatments within each category. Having a broad term is however useful for the reason I explained in the above paragraph.

Now, there is one thing I think keg will bring up in regards to closed mindedness and I'm curious to see if he does.

 

[Interdasting]

Fear of dissent is only to be feared if there is something to conceal. You are too emotionally invested into this topic to produce a discussion that isn't slanted or biased. It's apparent by your OP alone that you already have formed your opinion. You would even state that it is the job of the scientific community to expunge and silence others for "protecting" children or scientifically illiterate. That's an overreach of the open-mindedness you have stated that the community wants.

Why would you want to change public perception if not for your own beliefs? Doesn't seem to be protecting than it is pushing ideology. And again, most patients are not "misled". This isn't some crime; the patients most of the time are the ones to approach these fellows. Not to mention that clinical trials are as honest and accurate as polling, given how most of us have already noted that these issues are on a per-individual basis, as is all medicine, since not all patients have the same issues.

"Alternative" medicine as opposed to "conventional" medicine. Alternative, from Latin altera- "another". Conventional from Latin convenio, convenire, conveni, conventus - "to come together". What has been approved of by those who have "come together" (which has yet to be listed or quantified in any way as to what the "scientific community" is formed from) have dictated what is and what is not acceptable by their own judgment.

Appealing to an authority does not produce an effectual result of an argument. Just because the scientific community disagrees does not make it gospel. To suggest that listening to them only and that others have no firmament is to be as close-minded as you suggest is the reason for approving of alternative medicine.

Despite it being a biological placebo, psychology has much to offer in terms of delusions and hallucinations and placebos. It has a use even if not accepted in other fields. I would advise you not to entertain the notion of bringing religion into this by alluding to creationism as being "unlikely to be true" in a discussion about the sciences and homeopathy and the like.

The reasons you list in the above paragraph are self-evident enough to show that broad terms are used only to lump disagreements into a category; irrelevant and disjoint principles and ideas being a part of one term is not unintentionally used to ignore.

 

[maxicek]

I don't think you can validate alternative treatment by arguing that just because the patient wants something it is OK to give it to them.

Here, have a cup of kool-aid.

 

[pharphis]

Fear of dissent is only to be feared if there is something to conceal. You are too emotionally invested into this topic to produce a discussion that isn't slanted or biased. It's apparent by your OP alone that you already have formed your opinion. You would even state that it is the job of the scientific community to expunge and silence others for "protecting" children or scientifically illiterate. That's an overreach of the open-mindedness you have stated that the community wants.

Why would you want to change public perception if not for your own beliefs? Doesn't seem to be protecting than it is pushing ideology. And again, most patients are not "misled". This isn't some crime; the patients most of the time are the ones to approach these fellows. Not to mention that clinical trials are as honest and accurate as polling, given how most of us have already noted that these issues are on a per-individual basis, as is all medicine, since not all patients have the same issues.

"Alternative" medicine as opposed to "conventional" medicine. Alternative, from Latin altera- "another". Conventional from Latin convenio, convenire, conveni, conventus - "to come together". What has been approved of by those who have "come together" (which has yet to be listed or quantified in any way as to what the "scientific community" is formed from) have dictated what is and what is not acceptable by their own judgment.

Appealing to an authority does not produce an effectual result of an argument. Just because the scientific community disagrees does not make it gospel. To suggest that listening to them only and that others have no firmament is to be as close-minded as you suggest is the reason for approving of alternative medicine.

Despite it being a biological placebo, psychology has much to offer in terms of delusions and hallucinations and placebos. It has a use even if not accepted in other fields. I would advise you not to entertain the notion of bringing religion into this by alluding to creationism as being "unlikely to be true" in a discussion about the sciences and homeopathy and the like.

The reasons you list in the above paragraph are self-evident enough to show that broad terms are used only to lump disagreements into a category; irrelevant and disjoint principles and ideas being a part of one term is not unintentionally used to ignore.

Yes, I have formed my opinion. What makes you think this opinion is unwilling to change? I have no idea how open-mindedness has ANYTHING to do with my wish for society to be well protected by those who would take advantage of them or those who would "treat" through means that lack evidence of safety and/or efficacy. Can you explain how this is any different than wanting pharmaceuticals to be regulated for safety/efficacy? How does THAT example have nothing to do with open mindedness but suddenly it does for wanting to better regulate alt med?

Yes, patients are miseld. They are misled by practitioners of alt med into believing that what they do has 1) basis in reality, 2) evidence of safety/efficacy, and 3) alt med practitioners are regulated effectively because they have their own self-regulated "licenses" and thus they are trained and knowledgeable enough to help. I didn't suggest it was a crime
Are you seriously suggesting that properly blinded, controlled clinical trials are as useful as polling? This seems profoundly incorrect. It's the "blinding" the removes biases and the control that helps deal with other variables. Polling has usefulness in the right contexts but it is nowhere near as useful as RCTs or even other types of studies.

Those who have "come together" to form the scientific community at large are those that on average have the best training, knowledge and experience when it comes to a given field. This is the "expert consensus" I keep mentioning. It's not some arbitrary opinion but something that is based on evidence. A consensus is a tough thing to reach, requiring a lot of evidence. Their own judgment is the best standard we have. Can you think of a better or even comparable standard?

It's not an appeal to authority fallacy, if that's what you're suggesting. Appealing to the proper authority (expert) for a given topic (or better yet, consensus) is not fallacious. The consensus is not "gospel" but provisional as I already explained - based on evidence and changing as the evidence changes. Having said all this, you don't need to be part of the scientific community if you can provide good reason to believe a claim (such as efficacy). If the reason is sound enough, it might even be investigated by those with proper training to do so. This has been done for much of alt med which is why those parts are rejected (homeopathy) as implausible or impossible. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't trust the scientific consensus that homeopathy is nonsense? Why or why not?

Creationism doesn't necessarily have to be a religious topic and I brought it up on scientific grounds as an example of something that has been established as untrue via multiple fields of inquiry, like homeopathy. I also brought it up in the example of AIG for an example of what closed mindedness actually is (rejection of all things which disagree with their bias). I don't want to turn this into an argument about religion and someone is free to start a thread on that if they disagree with my statement that creationism is fiction, which is a scientific claim. Even in the same religions there is discussion among the merits of evolution vs. creationism in scientific terms and not just theological terminology which is why I point out that it is not a religious question for me.

I don't think I understand your last point. Why is it a bad thing to have a term to attribute to all things not established by medical science as effective/safe? It's not like we're limited to talking only about broad topics, and we can talk specifics. I started off by talking about a more specific group of people (NDs) and their poor education regarding medicine and basic science. Science is not subjective, either. The community is made up of subjective agents, ofc, which is why we rely on the consensus. If something is "alt med" there is a very high probability that it lacks strong evidence of safety/efficacy. I won't comment on psychology much because I don't know much about it.

 

[pharphis]

I don't think you can validate alternative treatment by arguing that just because the patient wants something it is OK to give it to them.

Here, have a cup of kool-aid.

Exactly. It is unethical for doctors to prescribe placebo. Why should other groups be allowed to do the same, regardless of how much they or their patients believe it will be effective?

 

[Interdasting]

@maxicek The patient's concerns and decisions supercede the selfishness of the Hypocritic Oath or any other guise of control that a practitioner would use to validate his own authority. The dichotomy between the want of keeping alive family or patients and the patient's own choice(s) is fleshed out nicely in thanatologist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's On Death and Dying.


@pharphis I didn't say your opinion wasn't willing to change. Your lack of willingness to give an equal forum to practices which may give people reprieve is that which is unacceptable. What separates this form of medicine from that of the regular (ab)use of Electroshock Therapy in the early 20th century for nearly every mental condition? At that time doctors considered it safe and worthwhile. Or the inconsistency and dangers of chemotherapy? It's not a panacea, sure, and it might not be consistent, but no medicine so far has been either. I don't see the point of squashing a fly with a bat, since some people do indeed profit from placebos. Heck, do we have one billion alcoholics for nothing? People want to feel good. And there's no problem with that, even if the scientific community doesn't want to deal with subjective results. Because we have been attempting to run from pain for as long as history allows.
And no, I won't, because I haven't the notion to argue that, nor have I ever endorsed something similar.

Double-blind and controlled trials do not mean that it is devoid of lurking variables, sampling distribution, and the notion that medicine is determined on an individual level.

A vague community at best, then. Appealing to an anonymous authority is just as confusing as it has been before. Can you tell me who any of these people are? Who makes up this community? What evidence do they use? I'm skeptical of any "Well they say"s. Their judgment is their judgment. Being the best standard is not only subjective, but hysterical given how divided they are on many, many topics.

No, it is a definite appeal. You say that they are the "best we have", that what they decide is right in and of itself, and so on. That's more than just noting them as a source for your argument, but your crux is that they are the ones who decided this, and thus it is true. That's faulty logic.

No, I'm not suggesting that their decision is faulty. Can you quit it with the strawman fallacies? You've misquoted me or misread what I've said three or more times now. How about you answer me this instead: Where is all this evidence you keep bringing up? Of the "community's" decision. Not individual per-basis acceptance or denial of this practice. Give me proof of this community denying this practice. Give me proof that anything you or they have said is not bovine excrement.

Because to ignore one side is to remain ignorant and unwilling to educate oneself. Again, the scientific community (whatever it is) is not even close to being the harbinger of "safety". In what context is it ever worth considering ignoring knowledge for the sake of somebody's safety (which in itself is subjective and irresponsible for an educated society).

 

[pharphis]

@maxicek The patient's concerns and decisions supercede the selfishness of the Hypocritic Oath or any other guise of control that a practitioner would use to validate his own authority. The dichotomy between the want of keeping alive family or patients and the patient's own choice(s) is fleshed out nicely in thanatologist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's On Death and Dying.


@pharphis I didn't say your opinion wasn't willing to change. Your lack of willingness to give an equal forum to practices which may give people reprieve is that which is unacceptable. What separates this form of medicine from that of the regular (ab)use of Electroshock Therapy in the early 20th century for nearly every mental condition? At that time doctors considered it safe and worthwhile. Or the inconsistency and dangers of chemotherapy? It's not a panacea, sure, and it might not be consistent, but no medicine so far has been either. I don't see the point of squashing a fly with a bat, since some people do indeed profit from placebos. Heck, do we have one billion alcoholics for nothing? People want to feel good. And there's no problem with that, even if the scientific community doesn't want to deal with subjective results. Because we have been attempting to run from pain for as long as history allows.
And no, I won't, because I haven't the notion to argue that, nor have I ever endorsed something similar.

Double-blind and controlled trials do not mean that it is devoid of lurking variables, sampling distribution, and the notion that medicine is determined on an individual level.

A vague community at best, then. Appealing to an anonymous authority is just as confusing as it has been before. Can you tell me who any of these people are? Who makes up this community? What evidence do they use? I'm skeptical of any "Well they say"s. Their judgment is their judgment. Being the best standard is not only subjective, but hysterical given how divided they are on many, many topics.

No, it is a definite appeal. You say that they are the "best we have", that what they decide is right in and of itself, and so on. That's more than just noting them as a source for your argument, but your crux is that they are the ones who decided this, and thus it is true. That's faulty logic.

No, I'm not suggesting that their decision is faulty. Can you quit it with the strawman fallacies? You've misquoted me or misread what I've said three or more times now. How about you answer me this instead: Where is all this evidence you keep bringing up? Of the "community's" decision. Not individual per-basis acceptance or denial of this practice. Give me proof of this community denying this practice. Give me proof that anything you or they have said is not bovine excrement.

Because to ignore one side is to remain ignorant and unwilling to educate oneself. Again, the scientific community (whatever it is) is not even close to being the harbinger of "safety". In what context is it ever worth considering ignoring knowledge for the sake of somebody's safety (which in itself is subjective and irresponsible for an educated society).

This might be nit-picking but when it comes to patients who have much less to lose because of say a terminal illness I think it is completely different. Otherwise, no, I don't think it's selfish to have standards of what a patient can be given and what they cannot be given.

My lack of willingness is for the untrained and uneducated (or miseducated, wrt naturopaths) to be able to use unproven treatments on patients via UNinformed consent is exactly what my problem is. I'll bring this up again because you seem to have not answered my question sufficiently:

"Can you explain how this is any different than wanting pharmaceuticals to be regulated for safety/efficacy? How does THAT example have nothing to do with open mindedness but suddenly it does for wanting to better regulate alt med? "

This is not a question of "open mindedness" but a question of protecting the patient from misinformed consent. Without better regulation, the patient CANNOT be properly informed because those who want to perform alt med are poorly educated, poorly trained, and the standards of care are poorly defined if defined at all (this varies states by state and province by province afaik).
What I have NOT suggested is that "alt med" cannot or should not be scientifically investigated, which is what @kestegs appears to be suggesting (I'll leave it up to him to expand on what he meant, since he hasn't yet). I say we leave that to the people with the best training and best knowledge of what is scientifically plausible (ie not homeopathy). This is called being open minded. That said, obviously research resources are finite and competitive and so most of traditional alt med would not be investigated by those with better education and training. There are ofc some who will.

OFC you can't eliminate all variables but that does not mean that your claim that RCTs are as useful of polls is justified.

The scientific community is not "vague" and it is built up by the peer-reviewed scientific literature and it's authors. The "many topics they are divided on" are things that by definition is not a consensus opinion, and open to debate. What part of "the scientific community for a given field forms an exert consensus" is unclear? It is not fallacious to refer to this consensus as the best representation of truth for a given topic. Which makes me raise this question again: Do you believe that homeopathy works? Why or why not? The reason for your answer is the important thing to answer.

My argument is they are the best source of truth until proven otherwise, when it comes to consensus positions. That doesn't mean these positions cannot change over time but it is best to to accept, provisionally (as do they) that the consensus position (by definition backed by lots of evidence) is the truth without personally having to evaluate all the literature yourself.

As we've already discussed the evidence is a combination of poor evidence of efficacy, poor prior plausibility, or lack of evidence altogether. I will admit that the fringes of the definition of alt med is more open to debate. Some things are without a doubt false (homeopathy) while others have some evidence of efficacy (some chiropractic). The borders of conventional and alt med is loosely defined and i'm fine with that. That doesn't disagree with the idea that these questionable practices do not have expert consensus agreement of their efficacy.

As I explained above I'm not "ignoring knowledge". Talk about strawmanning. My position is that the untrained and uneducated have no right to practice medicines without evidence of efficacy. How is this equivalent to "ignoring knowledge"? The scientific community looks at the medical literature and takes it seriously. What are they ignoring, exactly? The opinions of the miseducated that is unpublished?

What does electroshock therapy have to do with anything? The issue is with informed consent and properly trained doctors administering treatment. Is this one of those "scientists can be wrong!" arguments that people use so often for fear mongering? Scientists make mistakes and occasionally a consensus can even form based on faulty (or simply incomplete) evidence (thalidomide is a good example). That doesn't mean that any more than say 1% of consensus views are wrong or that the alternative - the miseducated using the unproven - is any better or even comparable.

 

[Kestegs]

I'm not saying that alt medicine shouldn't be tested, just that I don't trust people like you to test it.

For me the difference that I see with why it's okay for less regulations on alt medicine is this: People see "real" doctors /medicine as the tested and tried method. People know it's been heavily tested and they have a reasonable expectation of what they'll get. When seeking alt medicine I think most people realize it's not as regulated. They know they're more responsible for making sure they're getting safe care, and testing the results for themselves.

If people can't be responsible for themselves and be their own advocate then shouldn't they fall victim to natural selection? (This isn't necessarily my belief, but I'm curious why you want all this hand holding of "stupid" people to go on)

 

[pharphis]

I'm not saying that alt medicine shouldn't be tested, just that I don't trust people like you to test it.

For me the difference that I see with why it's okay for less regulations on alt medicine is this: People see "real" doctors /medicine as the tested and tried method. People know it's been heavily tested and they have a reasonable expectation of what they'll get. When seeking alt medicine I think most people realize it's not as regulated. They know they're more responsible for making sure they're getting safe care, and testing the results for themselves.

If people can't be responsible for themselves and be their own advocate then shouldn't they fall victim to natural selection? (This isn't necessarily my belief, but I'm curious why you want all this hand holding of "stupid" people to go on)

Well, not me because I'm a chemist but what about people trained in medicine? Why or why not? Some of them do test various things, with mixed results depending on the topic and quality of study.

Correct me if I'm wrong so we can all stop throwing around strawmen allegations, but your position I believe based on my posts and your quoted response is:
1) alt med should be allowed to be practiced
2) those who practice it shouldn't have some regulatory body and tight regulations on claims of safety and efficacy, as well as proper training/education because
3) the general public mostly knows that they are risk taking?

I have a few problems with this that also relate to the question you posed:

Spoiler

1) First, most people aren't stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are educated enough (scientifically literate) to know better. Also, people can't simply "test the results for themselves" with most things. Unless it is something very easily evaluated and not subjective (say, scurvy fixed with vitamin C? or a mangled limb being removed by surgery?).

2) Alt med deals with a lot of advertising and the making of unjustified claims (I understand the need to advertise). Those practitioners falsely believe that what they do is effective (or else they wouldn't do it) because they've been trained to believe so and through a combination of anecdotes and confirmation bias. This translates into being all too willing to convince patients that they are right, because the general public (I would argue just about everyone, actually) is easily convinced by anecdotes and confirmation bias which convinces them that the treatment they will be/are receiving is effective and safe.

3) Without regulating alt med, it is challenging for doctors to know proper patient medical history since there is a chance of dishonesty of lack of information given to them about alt med treatments they may be receiving or have received in the past.

4) Without regulating alt med, the components of such treatments (like herbs or supplements) are not guaranteed to even contain what they are supposed to

5) I think a well-regulated medical establishment is necessary for the ideal society. I think most people who aren't what I call crazy libertarians would agree with me. I don't think that someone should be able to decide that just because their drug or treatment doesn't pass the scientifically rigorous peer review, that they should just be able to set up shop with little to no responsibility for their actions.

6) I don't think it's fair for the public to be at risk simply because they're not in the position to know better, and especially the CHILDREN of said people.

7) I mentioned this before but the alt med community is largely antivaxx which affects everyone. This is an issue of the right to be properly informed, something which I argue the alt med community cannot do due to insufficient training and education. So I consider this an ethical dilemma (why should people be allowed to misinform (even accidentally) under the guise of someone who can be a healthcare provider).

8) I believe that alternative treatments that are at least plausible (ie not homeopathy) should be tested via clinical trials (or other types of studies) rather than just gathering millions of useless anecdotes.

I'm sure there's much more to be said or that I've already said but I think this list covers the gist of my position

 

[pharphis]

Much of the opinions I expressed in the above post I can see explained by a better and more informed person in today's post on SBM, which I only just read afterwards
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wikipedia-vs-quackery-standards-vs-chaos/

 

[epaminondas]

I went more than half-way through med school before I was forced to quit while being quite good at it. People here claim that placebo medicine is unethical to prescribe. Actually it is unethical to disregard the placebo effect. In some ailments placebo effects can be sought after first (before "real" drugs), for instance in some stress related disorders, but not only those. The reason for this is that drugs always have side-effects. Some doctors use the term "supra-tentorial" for those kind of ailments. This discussion can be developed further but it really is hard with someone without medical background (in my experience, often even with such persons ).

The bottom line: in my opinion, worse than being an uninformed patient is to be a semi-informed one.

 

[pharphis]

I went more than half-way through med school before I was forced to quit while being quite good at it. People here claim that placebo medicine is unethical to prescribe. Actually it is unethical to disregard the placebo effect. In some ailments placebo effects can be sought after first (before "real" drugs), for instance in some stress related disorders, but not only those. The reason for this is that drugs always have side-effects. Some doctors use the term "supra-tentorial" for those kind of ailments. This discussion can be developed further but it really is hard with someone without medical background (in my experience, often even with such persons ).

The bottom line: in my opinion, worse than being an uninformed patient is to be a semi-informed one.

because there is less potential for placebo, or?

 

[epaminondas]

No. It's because semi-informed persons have ideas that are harder to break when they are wrong and few doctors are willing to spare the effort. They also tend to think they know more than they really do and, consequently, make wrong decisions.

 

[pharphis]

No. It's because semi-informed persons have ideas that are harder to break when they are wrong and few doctors are willing to spare the effort. They also tend to think they know more than they really do and, consequently, make wrong decisions.

Ah, ok. I thought you were still talking about placebos.
I agree that it's the people with just a little bit of knowledge rather than none for a topic that are the most dangerous. Especially those who actually want to take advantage of others (like Mike Adams of Natural News, or Mercola)

 

[epaminondas]

Ah, ok. I thought you were still talking about placebos.
I agree that it's the people with just a little bit of knowledge rather than none for a topic that are the most dangerous. Especially those who actually want to take advantage of others (like Mike Adams of Natural News, or Mercola)

Well, what I said includes the discussion about placebo. This topic is discussed here by semi-informed people (in my view) so I said that as a warning.

 

[Kestegs]

Well, not me because I'm a chemist but what about people trained in medicine? Why or why not? Some of them do test various things, with mixed results depending on the topic and quality of study.

Correct me if I'm wrong so we can all stop throwing around strawmen allegations, but your position I believe based on my posts and your quoted response is:
1) alt med should be allowed to be practiced
2) those who practice it shouldn't have some regulatory body and tight regulations on claims of safety and efficacy, as well as proper training/education because
3) the general public mostly knows that they are risk taking?

I have a few problems with this that also relate to the question you posed:

Spoiler

1) First, most people aren't stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are educated enough (scientifically literate) to know better. Also, people can't simply "test the results for themselves" with most things. Unless it is something very easily evaluated and not subjective (say, scurvy fixed with vitamin C? or a mangled limb being removed by surgery?).

2) Alt med deals with a lot of advertising and the making of unjustified claims (I understand the need to advertise). Those practitioners falsely believe that what they do is effective (or else they wouldn't do it) because they've been trained to believe so and through a combination of anecdotes and confirmation bias. This translates into being all too willing to convince patients that they are right, because the general public (I would argue just about everyone, actually) is easily convinced by anecdotes and confirmation bias which convinces them that the treatment they will be/are receiving is effective and safe.

3) Without regulating alt med, it is challenging for doctors to know proper patient medical history since there is a chance of dishonesty of lack of information given to them about alt med treatments they may be receiving or have received in the past.

4) Without regulating alt med, the components of such treatments (like herbs or supplements) are not guaranteed to even contain what they are supposed to

5) I think a well-regulated medical establishment is necessary for the ideal society. I think most people who aren't what I call crazy libertarians would agree with me. I don't think that someone should be able to decide that just because their drug or treatment doesn't pass the scientifically rigorous peer review, that they should just be able to set up shop with little to no responsibility for their actions.

6) I don't think it's fair for the public to be at risk simply because they're not in the position to know better, and especially the CHILDREN of said people.

7) I mentioned this before but the alt med community is largely antivaxx which affects everyone. This is an issue of the right to be properly informed, something which I argue the alt med community cannot do due to insufficient training and education. So I consider this an ethical dilemma (why should people be allowed to misinform (even accidentally) under the guise of someone who can be a healthcare provider).

8) I believe that alternative treatments that are at least plausible (ie not homeopathy) should be tested via clinical trials (or other types of studies) rather than just gathering millions of useless anecdotes.

I'm sure there's much more to be said or that I've already said but I think this list covers the gist of my position

It's people that think like you that I don't trust to test things. If studies are finding all of these alt medicine practices to not ever work then the people conducting the studies aren't doing it right.

I'm not real sure what I'm strawmanning, I've never debated this before, so I'm not sure what I would be doing really.

1. yes
2. yes, although they already do have some regulations, which is fine.
3. Maybe, but I guess the depends on your definition of alt medicine. I. E. Most people wouldn't call chiropractic an alt medicine.

1. People don't need to be scientifically literate to make intelligent decisions.

2. The world revolves around anecdotes, I'm sorry if you don't accept them.

3. That is fair, and could certainly be improved.

4. True.

5. I threw up a little when you said "ideal society" *shudders

Was I giving off the crazy libertarian vibe? I actually got a whiff of it myself after reading my posts again. Which may be a deeper undertone that I hadn't considered on why this irritates me so much, since I am a libertarian.

6. Children certainly complicate things, as usual. But parents have every other liberty to effect their kids, so this is no different. My neighbor's young kids don't have a bed time and can watch R rated movies, and I think that's a lot more detrimental to their well being than chiropractic and acupuncture.

7. I am pro vax, and have done a fair amount of research on it.

8. The anecdotes are a good reason to have tests done, it's a natural progression for me. I would say I don't believe in homeopathy, but I know very little about it besides what you've said. I do agree with placebos though, I think they have a valid place in care (not in every situation)

 

[pharphis]

While I think it is unethical to treat with placebos I think an alternative would be to have the patient decide upfront with their d

It's people that think like you that I don't trust to test things. If studies are finding all of these alt medicine practices to not ever work then the people conducting the studies aren't doing it right.

I'm not real sure what I'm strawmanning, I've never debated this before, so I'm not sure what I would be doing really.

1. yes
2. yes, although they already do have some regulations, which is fine.
3. Maybe, but I guess the depends on your definition of alt medicine. I. E. Most people wouldn't call chiropractic an alt medicine.

1. People don't need to be scientifically literate to make intelligent decisions.

2. The world revolves around anecdotes, I'm sorry if you don't accept them.

3. That is fair, and could certainly be improved.

4. True.

5. I threw up a little when you said "ideal society" *shudders

Was I giving off the crazy libertarian vibe? I actually got a whiff of it myself after reading my posts again. Which may be a deeper undertone that I hadn't considered on why this irritates me so much, since I am a libertarian.

6. Children certainly complicate things, as usual. But parents have every other liberty to effect their kids, so this is no different. My neighbor's young kids don't have a bed time and can watch R rated movies, and I think that's a lot more detrimental to their well being than chiropractic and acupuncture.

7. I am pro vax, and have done a fair amount of research on it.

8. The anecdotes are a good reason to have tests done, it's a natural progression for me. I would say I don't believe in homeopathy, but I know very little about it besides what you've said. I do agree with placebos though, I think they have a valid place in care (not in every situation)

Red: This is exactly my point. You are starting from the conclusion and wanting to validate it through scientific means. The purpose of studying a potential treatment is to determine if it is effective or not, accepting both negative and positive evidence and using the number of and quality of studies for a given treatment. You're suggesting that those biased towards a treatment should be the only ones to study it because they are more likely to "do it right" which in this case actually means "do it poorly" and/or only publish the positive data... By your own argument we should expect homeopathy to work! It's just that the people studying it don't want it to, or something.

2. Why should alt med get a free ride by being free from regulation (or limited regulation...?). Why is this different than say food products or other materials that are tested thoroughly for quality control? Should someone not be able to pursue a governing authority when they are in need of reimbursement or to make a complaint, either?

3. most people would be wrong about chiro, but I can understand why because they are doctors of chiropractic, so it is misleading. It is alt med, though. I'm not sure that it makes up "most people" like you're suggesting for chiro specifically but I don't know the real numbers so I won't bother contesting it and it's kind of a moot argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic (first sentence)

--

1. That's not really what I said. My point is that if an intelligent decision is to be based off of someone's interpretation of of a treatment then it is going to be biased from confirmation bias and misleading information convincing them that it should work, and their own subjective results, ofc. You can't get around this which is why we use a variety of testing protocols to see if a new treatment works or not, BETTER than placebo. I suspect you would agree with me that pharmaceuticals shouldn't be allowed to be sold and for the target patients to just "decide for themselves" whether it works or not.

2. Anecdotes can be useful but anecdotes are not sufficient when it comes to labeling a product as effective... you need properly designed studies to demonstrate that. Anecdotes are the poorest kind of evidence, because they are statistically meaningless. I think I mentioned this before, but if anecdotes were sufficient evidence for something, then we should all be devout Muslims, Christians, and Jews (among many others) due to personal revelation of others. Obviously, this is illogical.

3. and 4. you seem to agree are issues or at least factual. Are they not strong enough issues to warrant better regulation?

5. What term should I have used instead of ideal society? I don't think a utopia or anything like that is possible, but I think we can use science and reason to come as close as possible, and I think it's evident that regulation through a social democratic system is a necessary component. Otherwise, it's just the rich ruling the poor ad infinitum. The rich can afford the education and services they need, while the poor are systematically oppressed. I didn't want to turn this into a general political discussion but I'm not sure if you just didn't like the term I used or disagree with the idea of striving for the best possible society we can.

6. They absolutely do NOT. You're not allowed to neglect or maim your child, by law. You have to feed your children, and you're expected to educate them and make sure they are healthy. It is only the absurd laws such as religious exemption laws for child abuse that allow parents to do more or less whatever they want. ("we don't believe in challenging god's will so our child died of pneumonia/allergic reaction/starvation"). Parents get a lot of leeway when it comes to much mroe subjective things which is fine, such as the things you listed. Healthcare allows for some parental freedom but I believe it is up to society to prevent such abuses from happening (such as antivaxxers claiming "freedom of choice" for them to choose for their child, as if that makes any sense beyond an ideological talking point). Unfortunately, such religious or "personal belief" exemption laws exist, to the harm of the children (as if the children are by definition the same religion or hold the same beliefs...)

7. Good. You might still disagree with my above points but I think that's better left for another discussion

8. Exactly. Anecdotes that support things which are plausible (say, some herbal treatment) can and do suggest a path of research to take. Going back to the very beginning, then, we should have those who are trained to design such studies in an objective sense conduct them assuming they can get research funding for it. Research is extremely competitive, and patients are limited, so most research money is spent on things with the highest prior plausibility. It is the government and private sector that both fund these studies, and you can bet that they're both interesting in discovering something that works. With infinite resources, sure, we could investigate homeopathy ad infinitum... Well, even then I would probably disagree on ethical grounds, just like I would disagree with investigating whether bleach smoothies were effective for treating hunger.

 

[Interdasting]

So is this about stopping con artists now that somebody has pointed out that the placebo effect is in fact not to be ignored?

Since there are already many regulations set in place regarding some altmed techniques by states. What do you want? Federal Government regulations? Over what? New techniques? I don't see what you want exactly.

 

[pharphis]

I'll quote myself:

"My position is that the untrained and uneducated have no right to practice medicines without evidence of efficacy."

This would mean those that don't go through the best channels available for training (such as med school) do not have the right to license themselves (such as NDs and DCs) and use treatments that have little to no evidence of efficacy or prior plausibility. If you go back to my OP, I believe the alt med crowd should not have their rights extended to being able to prescribe medication, but I don't think they should be allowed to practice anything medical by law because almost everything they do is a violation of the patient's informed consent.

I think most people are not con artists through deception, because I believe they actually believe what they are saying is true (wouldn't you, after tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a 4 year education (such as NDs) by others who truly believe that what they are doing works?).

I'm open to the idea of those with proper science and medical training to perform studies to evaluate the efficacy of these ideas, if they can get funding and support from a board of ethics. I'm all for more research, though it happens to be true that much of the standard alt med practices have been proven beyond a doubt to not work. Let the professionals do the work, and let's stop pretending that there should be a legal alternative to what has been proven to work.